Man Gave Birth In UK

PinkNews reports that, for the first time, a man has given birth in the UK. It happened six months ago, and the press never picked it up:

... the man in his thirties gave birth to a child last year via a caesarean section.

Joanna Darrell, of the Beaumont Society, which helps men who wish to or have changed gender told the newspaper that the unnamed father got in touch to enquire for help having a child after having undergone gender reassignment surgery.

Through the charity, the unnamed man had hormone treatment to reactivate his womb. The womb had not actually been removed during his original surgery. “He got back in touch about six months ago to thank the society for its help and to say he had the baby,” Ms Darrell said.

You can't blame the anonymous fellow for wanting to lay low. When pregnant trans man Thomas Beatie was in the news, he took a lot of crap -- I remember the guys on Red Eye, usually FOX News' least odious show, referred to his gestating baby as "a litle ewok" whom Beatie would shortly "crap out," and fantasized about stoning Beatie to death in a parking lot. What's it even mean to be pro-family, anyway?

I'm not sure this has anything to do with gender. as a gay man, i would LOVE to be able to have a biological child with my partner. if there was a way to do it, i would possibly consider it. this isnt about a desire to be a woman or do something woman-like. it's just about an option to procreate that is possibly easier and possibly less full of complications that adoption/fostering/etc. (not that there is anything wrong with any of those options).

Posted by: mike128 | Feb 12, 2012 3:47:18 PM

@Stuffed Animal

I saw the title of the post and actually got excited--seriously, I thought there had been an organ transplant and was anxious to read how they did it.

@TJ

Thanks for trying to help me understand it. I just...I don't understand how someone can say a "man" had a baby. If you are a trans-man then why on earth are you giving birth? How do you as a man feel comfortable with this? Men can nurture and parent, but...men don't give birth. They give sperm.

And as for the biological component some people made...if they are going to transmogrify then they should have their eggs removed for future use just as many male>female transgenders have their sperm saved.

Another thing that concerns me is: committment.

Okay, when males transition to females, they remove the penis and invert it. He becomes a sterilized "she" for all intents and purposes. The commitment from male to female is exactly at the sort of "believable" level, IE, taking that final step to rid yourself of any remnants of "male" left in you.

When women transition to men, they are not undergoing a hysterectomy or closing up (sorry, don't know how else to put it) that area for business. They are not "committed" to the new gender in the way that male>females are.

If they are not committed, why should I then call them a "male"? They are a female taking male hormones because part of being female is the capability (at some point in their life) for fertility + gestation of a fetus. Males don't, so you must abdicate that capability and assume the role of man, IF you believe you are a man.

This is having the cake and eat it, too, and then expect the world to not only accept you, but understand and support your rights. Most of us don't always get what we want out of life. There are gay and lesbian couples who want kids and make due with one partner contributing and just loving the hell out of the child when its born.

I WANT to accept people. I want to learn about people, but this doesn't seem...kosher. It makes the whole "trans" concept of feeling a different gender on the inside seem frivolous, less than fully sincere, and somewhat fake. If you are adopting what "male" is or "female" is and saying you are defined by gender constructs (which is what it truly is) then you must fully embrace it if you want me to embrace it.

And most people do want that acceptance. They want to use the female facilities or male facilities. They yearn for that label and name, and the ones that aren't willing to full embrace the change are hurting the case of those that do.

Now, am I going to spray paint this persons house or be mean to them in public...? No, a thousand times no. There is no excuse for cruelty, none at all. I just do not understand this "men having a baby" thing. And if I don't understand...I can't see the voting population understanding. It's just gives people another excuse to martial the troops and start up the old pitchforks and torches routine.

Posted by: Rin | Feb 12, 2012 4:57:43 PM

@Rin: I don't understand why you care what someone else does with their body as long as the person it affects feels comfortable.
He considers himself a "he" so that's fine with me.

Your insistence that someone pass a threshhold of "commitment" in order for you not to use your words to protest their gender strikes me the same as if you had a friend who had to get a hysterectomy for medical reasons and you suddenly told her that you will never call her a "she" again (no matter what she feels like she is) because she does not have the equipment to give birth.

Or let's say you meet someone and she says "My name on my birth certificate is Catherine but I've always felt more comfortable being called 'Kate'." Would you tell her that she's not fully committed to being a "Kate" because she hasn't changed her passport and put an announcement in the paper, so you refuse to refer to her the way she prefers?
Why not just refer to people in the way that they prefer?

It shouldn't be a problem explaining to your kids that men are XY and women are XX or that men have penises and prostates and women have vaginas and uteruses. As a general rule, that is the case. If they have follow-up questions about the exceptions where people are XXY or fragile X, or about a a friend's mom who adopted because she's infertile or a a man who had prostate cancer, etc., etc. (highly unlikely until they are much older and WAY beyond asking "What's the difference between a boy and a girl?"), then you can discuss those exceptions, and the original information about the general rules of thumb shouldn't make that any harder to understand.

You might also teach your kids when they're in kindergarten that it's cold in February and it's hot in July.
That gets them started understanding the way the seasons work.

And if you take them to the Southern Hemisphere when they're 12, they can learn that for some people in the world, things are different.

The basic starting points you tell them in kindergarten (it's cold in February; women have uteruses) don't make the exceptions any harder to understand later on when they're ready to study more advanced genetics or global climate zones.

Posted by: GregV | Feb 12, 2012 5:50:53 PM

With all due respect, it seems many here are focusing on the plumbing while ignoring the wiring.

For all practical purposes, transgendered persons think, live, feel and breathe a gender identity that is at odds with their biological bodies. It's one of the reasons a biological male is required to live as woman (and vice versa) for a significant period of time before they may undergo sexual reassignment surgery.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | Feb 12, 2012 5:53:25 PM

Agree w/Acronym Jim -- Transgendered people are so because of their brain first.

Personally I don't have a problem with a trans man "reactivating" his womb so he can give birth.

The thing I take issues with is that Thomas Beatie, this anonymous guy -- they are not biologically male. I don't believe they or anyone in their lives are "pretending," mind you. Thomas Beatie is a man, this guy is man. However, they are biologically female.

As such, if someone who is biologically female gives birth, it is not news, and to me it doesn't count as a man giving birth. It's a sensationalist headline to suggest such. If a man born with a penis and testicles carries a child to term and births it, then a man has given birth.

I don't think that invalidates the trans man's ability or right to be a man--more power to him, but it is not news if someone who was born with a uterus chooses to use it, regardless of what gender they consider themselves to be.

Posted by: antisaint | Feb 12, 2012 6:17:43 PM

I would be fine with all this if the headline said Transman Gave Birth in UK. I'm Irish German American and no headline is going to call me Mexican because I can get tan and speak Spanish. For heaven's sake we use the words adopted when describing children who were lovingly chosen by their parents and naturalized when describing a U.S. citizens who chose to become so. So to not say "transman" before this is to make one read the article because of the sensational nature of the headline to realize, that yes a man who has a uterus gave birth to a baby- AGAIN!

Posted by: frank | Feb 12, 2012 6:35:52 PM

FYI- when you link to the original article it all starts out with TRANS-MAN which would have changed this whole discussion for many of the folks on this board

Posted by: frank | Feb 12, 2012 6:49:33 PM

Thomas Beatie did it because his wife was infertile. I don't know what this guy's motivation was, but I want to give him a pat on the back for freaking all you people out.

Seriously, some of you are acting like this is the end of the world. I can't understand the levels of hysteria here. I understand a man wanting to be pregnant more than I understand you lot.

Posted by: InscrutableTed | Feb 12, 2012 7:56:15 PM

RIN - I appreciate your frustration, and get what you mean by commitment. How I originally processed the idea of a male transitioning to a female was that as much as I believe I am male and enjoying being male, and in particular am grateful for the years of pleasure my outside plumbing fixture has provided me, the person willing to give up their outside plumbing fixture must also believe what they believe and feel how they feel pretty strongly. Since I can't actually feel what that person is feeling or think what that person is thinking, I try to empathize as best I can. Certitude, and commitment, helped me understand.

Although this person's particular circumstances are not entirely clear, and lacking any evidence to he contrary, I am going to assume that this person made the best decision for himself. While I can understand that some would use this against the trans community, I suspect that those looking for an excuse will always find one, with or without the help of an outlier. What I see as ultimately important is to respect this person's right to live his life as he sees fit, because his choices don't negatively affect my life or anyone else's, as far as I know. It is not his duty to make his life understandable to me any more than it is that someone explain to me the appeal of Adam Sandler movies; it's none of my business or concern.

Posted by: TJ | Feb 12, 2012 8:37:43 PM

RIN - I appreciate your frustration, and get what you mean by commitment. How I originally processed the idea of a male transitioning to a female was that as much as I believe I am male and enjoying being male, and in particular am grateful for the years of pleasure my outside plumbing fixture has provided me, the person willing to give up their outside plumbing fixture must also believe what they believe and feel how they feel pretty strongly. Since I can't actually feel what that person is feeling or think what that person is thinking, I try to empathize as best I can. Certitude, and commitment, helped me understand.

Although this person's particular circumstances are not entirely clear, and lacking any evidence to he contrary, I am going to assume that this person made the best decision for himself. While I can understand that some would use this against the trans community, I suspect that those looking for an excuse will always find one, with or without the help of an outlier. What I see as ultimately important is to respect this person's right to live his life as he sees fit, because his choices don't negatively affect my life or anyone else's, as far as I know. It is not his duty to make his life understandable to me any more than it is that someone explain to me the appeal of Adam Sandler movies; it's none of my business or concern.

Posted by: TJ | Feb 12, 2012 8:41:42 PM

From Monty Python's "Life of Brian":
*****
Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta.
Reg: What?
Loretta: It's my right as a man.
Judith: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
Loretta: I want to have babies.
Reg: You want to have babies?!
Loretta: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But...you can't have babies!
Loretta: Don't you oppress me!
Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb. Where is the fetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a box?

Posted by: Henry Holland | Feb 12, 2012 8:45:15 PM

No need to be scared, folks.
Keep calm and carry on.

Posted by: Chaq | Feb 13, 2012 3:02:14 AM

you are not a man if you give birth - you are your own unique individual being - but not male

Posted by: treat | Feb 13, 2012 8:22:46 AM

"you are your own unique individual being"

No, this person is, at the most basic genetic level, a man. He was conceived as a male, his genetic code was XY at birth, he will always be a man, no matter what cosmetic changes he makes to his body. It's a sad situation, but until they can manipulate a person's entire DNA sequence, he'll always be a man.

Posted by: Henry Holland | Feb 13, 2012 2:10:24 PM

If he was a male, then the baby would have a mother, right?
and if he calls himself a female, then the baby had a MALE father, right?
i mean if the baby was a girl then from where did the other chromosome came from, a male or female ??
so, that person would be called a male, a female or a heterosexual person ?? a he, a she or a she-male ???